Paladins mark "fix" a plazebo?

[Andur]

n/a

 

[Knightlord]

It seems fine to me. It's not perfect, but few features ever are, simply because creative players will almost ALWAYS find a way to bend the rules to their advantage. Sometimes this is a bad thing, sometimes it's not. But it does happen, and it makes any "Feature" and it's potential "Fixes" vulnerable to manipulation.

In regards specifically to the Paladin Mark, Derren, they're are several ways you could further fix it, such as add a roleplaying element to it (as many have already stated here). Say if the Paladin does not engage the marked creature in melee, face-to-face, the mark vanishes due to the Paladin's God no longer granting the Paladin Divine aid due to Paladin's cowardly actions. Or, in simply a mechanical sense, you could just say that the Paladin's mark requires the Paladin to engage in melee with the marked creature or it doesn't work, period. If the Paladin cannot reach the target, then marking that specific target is illegal at the moment.

Just a thought.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It seems fine to me. It's not perfect, but few features ever are, simply because creative players will almost ALWAYS find a way to bend the rules to their advantage. Sometimes this is a bad thing, sometimes it's not. But it does happen, and it makes any "Feature" and it's potential "Fixes" vulnerable to manipulation.

In regards specifically to the Paladin Mark, Derren, they're are several ways you could further fix it, such as add a roleplaying element to it (as many have already stated here). Say if the Paladin does not engage the marked creature in melee, face-to-face, the mark vanishes due to the Paladin's God no longer granting the Paladin Divine aid due to Paladin's cowardly actions. Or, in simply a mechanical sense, you could just say that the Paladin's mark requires the Paladin to engage in melee with the marked creature or it doesn't work, period. If the Paladin cannot reach the target, then marking that specific target is illegal at the moment.

Just a thought.

Well, the critic only pertains to the actual mechanic, not to house-ruling or good role-playing.

But I say the fix works fine. Yes, there are ways to use the power at range. There are situations where this will be very handy and useful. But in the end, most Paladins will be better off wading into melee themselves.

I think the most interesting aspect of the challenge is that it allows the Paladin to deal with ranged attackers bettern then the Fighter. The Fighter always has to go and stay in melee with an enemy artillery or controller monster, while the Paladin just has to mark and challenge it once. This offers different tactical possibilities between these two Defender classes, and I think they highlight how different implementations of a Role can actually be different form each other.

 

[malraux]

Without reading the magic/combat/marking chapters, its hard to know if the mark and run tactic will even work. The mark has a range of 5, and though the DDXP text doesn't explicitly say this, its quite possible that marks also require the marker to stay within that range. Certainly it'll be very difficult for the pally to mark and then make it to extreme bow range. And unsurprisingly, two defenders should put a lot of constraints on what the opponents can do.

 

[Bagpuss]

The only house rule I might consider (if it actually turns out to be a problem) is that if the creature MUST suffer an AoO to attack the paladin, then the mark is cancelled. Which is similar to how the Knight's ability to get enemies to attack him worked.

 

[Njall]

Don't forget the fighter feat that makes the situation problematic - if a creature incurs an AoO from a fighter and is hit, it is stopped in its tracks and doesn't get to continue moving.

That is what makes a 'fighter pins and paladin taunts' situation potentially so nasty for the target.

Yes, assuming the fighter's AoOs always hit .
Furthermore, as I said, if the paladin does not shift, he'll eat an AoO from the solo monster as well.
If he shifts, the monster can shift as well as long as his land speed is at least equal to the paladin's.
The fighter can attack the monster if he is adjacent to him, but his attack is not an AoO: the attack comes from "combat challenge", thus it doesn't stop the monster from reaching the paladin ( only Opportunity Attacks stop a monster's movement action AFAIK)

OTOH, this kind of tactic is only effective if you're facing an opponent that's too hard to hit, otherwise the 8 damage/round wouldn't be that significant.
If the monster is so hard to hit, then the fighter's AoOs are less likely to work.

So you're using 2 characters to try and keep a monster pinned, you're limiting the paladin's damage capabilities, and the paladin could trigger an AoO whenever he tries to move away from the monster.
All for 8 more damage/round, that the pally could probably have dealt anyway if he used his smite or any other melee attack instead of a ranged attack? And it only works if the monster doesn't have enough reach, movement or an area attack, so you're not even guaranteed to succeed?
It doesn't seem broken to me, at all ^^'

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I don't really like this change.

That said, the exploit seems awfully situational. Not only does it take two classes and specific monster and environmental conditions to set up, but it seems like this would only be effective at lower levels.

Compare 8/turn to solo and elite monster HP in the upper paragon and epic tiers. I would think there are a lot better things one could do if he wanted to squeeze out extra damage.

I guess I'd have to see how well the Mark combos with Ranger and/or Warlock abilities. Since multiclassing is pretty limited, however, I think that will be pretty limited as well.

 

[Burr]

Why shouldn't the Paladin defend the Fighter by forcing the enemy to move, and why shouldn't the Fighter get an AoO when the enemy moves? It seems like a legitimate tactic for a Defender-loaded party, particularly since it only works once-ish. As soon as the monster melees the Paladin, it will be the Paladin who takes the AoO for moving. Plus, to set the tactic up again, the Fighter has to move as well, often pulling an AoO from whatever enemy's he's marked himself.

 

[OchreJelly]

I don't see this as a problem because of the opportunity cost of playing outside your role. A wizard could also wade into melee but it's probably a sub-optimal or situational (at best) solution for him.

So if the paladin decides to 'play ranger', he's giving up whatever other actions he could be doing, like defenderish stuff - stuff that deals more damage.

Lastly and maybe most importantly, doesn't the mark mean that the marked creature takes damage only from attacking someone other than the paladin? So in the long range situation if the enemies double move toward the paladin without attacking anyone period, the marked creature will NOT take mark damage. He may only suffer the paladin’s piddley ranged damage. I could be wrong about this, but I thought the mark triggered only when the enemy actually attacked.

 

[Dragonblade]

Total non-issue.

First of all, these are the kinds of cool synergies and tactics I want out of 4e, so this is great!

Second, its not a good tactic for anything but a solo monster. It ties up two defenders and leaves the rest of the party quite vulnerable.

Third, the paladin will never be as good at ranged attacks as they are at melee, so one defender is not going to be able to use his powers to his full potential. If you are going toe to toe with a solo, I think it would be more efficient for the paladin to be in the front line unleashing encounter and daily powers than hanging back with a ranged basic attack.

It is a moderately good tactic, but not broken by any means.